<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (9) TMI 1283 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300788</link>
    <description>A joint development agreement, read with an irrevocable power of attorney and connected acts, was treated as a transfer of immovable property because it conferred effective development and enjoyment rights, handed over title deeds and possession for development, and authorised the developer to mortgage, sell and otherwise control the asset. The tribunal held that exclusive possession was not required, registration was not decisive, and later termination or non-completion did not undo the charge once attracted; the value of the promised flats could also be included on a reasonable basis. The reassessment under sections 147 and 148 was also upheld, with no infirmity found in the reopening.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:20:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=671174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 1283 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300788</link>
      <description>A joint development agreement, read with an irrevocable power of attorney and connected acts, was treated as a transfer of immovable property because it conferred effective development and enjoyment rights, handed over title deeds and possession for development, and authorised the developer to mortgage, sell and otherwise control the asset. The tribunal held that exclusive possession was not required, registration was not decisive, and later termination or non-completion did not undo the charge once attracted; the value of the promised flats could also be included on a reasonable basis. The reassessment under sections 147 and 148 was also upheld, with no infirmity found in the reopening.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>